I tried to stay away from this thread. Oh, well...
Ted, congrats!
On 04/04/2017 08:18 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
Niclas,
I never presented an argument in favor of *using* a veto. I presented an
argument in favor of *having* a veto to potentially use.
That was well understood.
The possibility of a veto encourages consensus building before the decision
is recorded.
This is also understood, but it sounds to me that you are making Niclas'
point.
I personally think that vetoes should almost never happen because any
veto-worthy issue is brought out and resolved in discussion ahead of time.
Because of that, votes that may take place never do, because people
indicate via back channels what their vote will be (tactic I see even at
board level from time to time) and then the vote never takes place and
discussion and the status quo, well, continue. Nothing to report, all good.
Vetoes remove one of the few leverages the minority has, that's my
understanding of what Niclas meant.
That said, the majority has so many other ways to abuse of the minority,
that in my experience the only sane way is to just give up. Which most
do actually, sadly.
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Niclas Hedhman <hedh...@gmail.com> wrote:
But Ted, how does the minority regain the "minority's voice heard" simply
by veto of new members? If they place unreasonable vetoes and hope that
over time the majority will "evaporate" seems unproductive as well.
Vetoes can become very contentious, and I don't really buy the arguments
presented in favor of using it. To me a negative use is a BDFL-type
leader/founder preventing active contributors from getting a say in a
project.
The raised problem of community disharmony is not served with vetoes,
AFAICT.
On Apr 4, 2017 14:06, "Ted Dunning" <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote:
I hear it as the voice of (occasionally bitter) experience.
It could easily be my own voice as well. I have found in my own limited
experience that communities who pay attention to minority voices to be far
better at producing real consensus. I have also found that people with a
majority-rules opinion often change their opinion to minority-must-be-heard
when they are no longer in the majority. That matches what Joe said pretty
closely.
His phrasing might not be what I would use, but his experience seems to
match mine quite closely.
I also really don't see how a valid statement of long experience is FUD. I
certainly see a healthy dose of FUD in my day job from competitors and
Joe's statement is pretty different.
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
That borders on FUD.
Op di 4 apr. 2017 om 05:03 schreef Joseph Schaefer
<joe_schae...@yahoo.com.invalid>
Trust me niclas, you would be singing a very different tune if you
believed something like that were happening in a project you were
working
on and you were a member of the minority powerless to put a halt to it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
